Do feminists here really believe the myth that “if women ran the world, there would be no more wars”? Do feminists truly believe that a global matriarchy would mean the end of all wars?
Throughout history, there have been women leaders that have started or engaged in wars and military aggression.
Queen Isabella II of Spain invaded Morocco, and started wars with Peru, Chile, Cuba, and Puerto Rico.
Queen Victoria of the UK sent her nation to fight in the Second Boer War.
Catherine The Great of Russia was an expansionist which led to her invading the Turkish and Polish lands.
Elizabeth I of England started wars with the Spanish.
More currently and closer to home, Condoleeza Rice is an advocate and proponent of “pre-emptive war” (political alternative term for “aggressive warmongering”), and she is a supporter of the war in Iraq. Senator Hillary Clinton also voted for military invasion of Iraq.
Congressman Ron Paul is against pre-emptive war ideology and the Iraq War.
Clearly Paul, a male, who voted against military intervention in Iraq, is less violent than both Rice and Clinton.
Reference points:
Bill Maher on Feminism (03:12)
Sally Field’s recent Emmy Speech uncensored (01:33)
Watch Bill Maher’s comment about how people will applaud over this cliche’d myth, and then watch Sally Field state this cliche’d myth while the reaction is applause. Was Maher correct?
Franzia: Obviously the phrase “if women ran the world” indicates that it’s a hypothetical notion. Of course women have never “ran the world”. You say “we have no way to know”, but then again isn’t the phrase itself claiming to “know” that we’d have no more wars. So your point is moot.
Your second statement claiming “men who didn’t mind war and violence would probably attack them and force them to participate in war anyway” is also ridiculous. If women were in total power, then men wouldn’t really have the power to begin war without women’s consent. Secondly, why do you assume that only men wouldn’t “mind war”? Third, didn’t you just say that “we have no way to know”? So why are you already bringing up a conclusion if we have no way of knowing? Oh wait — you only bring up conclusions in hypothetical scenarios as long as it’s anti-male?
Franzia: (cont’d)
How do you know these women weren’t acting in their true nature? Did you know them? Were you there? These monarch women had absolute power and the final sayso. Secondly, all of these women I listed were the ones in control, not the kings. Why do you make the sexist notion that the king is always “the idiot”? Are you saying a queen can’t be an idiot? Isabella was quite an idiot as well. Look at her track-record. She was a supporter of the slave trade and she was put in exile. Victoria was threatened with assasination attempts for her bumbling idiocy and butchery.
Your statement about comparing Ron Paul to George W. Bush obviously shows your lack of education and abundance of ignorance. I never voted for Bush. Aren’t you Canadian? Anyway, Paul and Bush are polar opposites. Paul is against the Iraq War, and against most of Bush’s policies. Paul is an isolationalist that believes in non-interventionism and believes that the US should only use war in self-defense.
Franzia: (cont’d)
Maher and Fields are “uneducated” just because they’re celebrities. Another bogus statement you pulled out of your rear end. Bill Maher has a degree in English from Cornell University. Sally Field decided not to go to college, but does that make her uneducated? Malcolm X never went to college — was he uneducated? No, he was far more educated than you ever will be.
Rainbow:
Good one! I forgot about Margaret Thatcher and her military aggression against Argentina! She was definitely a warmongering woman.
I find it funny Franzia Kafka states that the women I listed “weren’t acting in their feminine nature”. But in many of Kafka’s rants around Yahoo Answers, she claims there’s no such thing as a “feminine” and “masculine” side, and that “gender is a social construct”. This is a belief held by many feminists. So does Franzia only refer to “gender” only when it serves her misandrist interest? If a woman commits a crime, she was “in touch with her masculine side”? If a female teacher commits statuatory **** with her student, was she acting within the bounds and mindset of a patriarchist? Was Mary Winkler in touch with her masculine side when she murdered her innocent husband with a shotgun blast to his back? So any wrongdoing a woman does, we’ll just say that for that split moment she wasn’t a woman, in some kind of a “trance” overcome with masculinity and patriarchial demons? LOL! Too funny! Please post more of this!
Wendy: That statement Queen Elizabeth made sounds pretty sexist against women. I don’t know any feminist that would support such a statement. Are women “weak and feeble”? Do women not have as much “heart and stomach” as a man? Not saying that I disagree, based on my observations of gender-related trends. But would a feminist agree? Afterall, feminists would state that such gender-related trends that indicate men have more “heart & stomach”, and that women are “weak and feeble” is all based on social constructs created within a patriarchy, and that none of these gender-traits are on inherent.
If woman ran the world i dont think they would be as qualified as the men who run the world now. Not that george bush is “qualified”
i think that if women were in charge it would be worse b/c they would be sneakier and more vicious…thats how girls are
Not really. People are screwed up.. All people. Female leaders would probably be just as bad as the male ones.
No, I don’t believe that. Or I should say, I don’t believe that any woman who is a leader in the world as it is would necessarily be more peaceful than a man. I also don’t believe that a “matriarchy” would be a good thing – no group should rule over other groups. Ideally, the government should be representative of the population as a whole (sex, race, ethnicity).
If women were in power, they’d have no problem declaring war. After all, the majority of those killed would be mere men.
I don’t.
I don’t know how many do. I do this this claim made; I think it’s silly.
Well, I don’t believe in the whole women/men can/cannot. The world would just be a bit different. A women can get into/fix wars just as a man could.
No. But we also have no way to know. Do you know why? Because women have NEVER “run the world.” And if they did, men who didn’t mind war and violence would probably attack them and force them to participate in war anyway. So there you have it.
And to pick out the few random “queens” whom men allowed to rise to power counts for s.hit. They are not acting on their *true* womanly or feminine impulses. They’re acting politically and within the confines of what they’ve learned growing up as spoiled, rich women in a *patriarchy* that places lots of *restrictions* on them that even the poorest men do not have. The queen was never the highest in herself. She was second always; the moment there was a king involved, he would immediately take the front seat. The king was always necessarily highest. Why do you think these queens never married or remarried? Der. Do you think they were stupid and wanted to hand over their power to some idiot so they could instead sit around and have his babies?
Lycra: You forgot about Margaret Thatcher going to war with the Falkland Islands. Or was that because you were running out of room?
Anyway, for what it’s worth – I agree with you. Women leaders have to make tough decisions just like male leaders. And sometimes those decisions can be tough, such as going to war.
So no, the world would not necessarily be a better place if women ran it, just different.
I don’t believe that if women ran the world (or just countries) there would be no more war. I believe that if the world were less patriarchal, there would be less war.
The difference is that while “man” and “woman” are terms which refer to the individual, “patriarchy” is a term for a system of belief where men or masculine accomplishments are valued more than women or feminine accomplishments simply because the people who support patriarchy believe masculinity is “the norm” and feminity (outside a context supported by patriarchy where it is lesser and/or silent) is deviant.
No way. If women ‘ran the world’, there would be just as many wars as there are now.
I could be really contorversial and blame religion for 99% of wars…(and oil obviously)!
I personally believe that whoever is in power, man or woman, they always end up corrupt in the end anyway!! Someone will end up p’ing off their over-inflated ego and cause a war somewhere along the line.
Who knows?
I do know that those women ruled in a Patriarchal society, and that most of them felt extreme pressure to “live up to” their male predecessors, and that they felt they needed to prove to their country and critics that they were capable of ruling by taking on the demeanor and actions of men.
Queen Elizabeth once said “I may have the weak and feeble body of a woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a man.”
The kinds of women that would end up in powerful political positions would have to maintain a status quo of a certain amount of military buildup and aggression to get elected. Non-aggressive people (men or women) don’t get elected past mayor.
Can’t say im a big ron paul guy. I like McCain, and unless Fred runs, im going with him.
Whether women ran the world or men did, there would be wars. Plane and simple truth. Someone would not be happy, get a group of followers and start a war. The gender of the leader has nothing to do with it.
You forgot about margareth thatcher and her constant threat to nuke something, and the falklands war.
The phrase “if women ran the world, there would be no more wars” sets up a hypothetical situation obviously. However, this gets down to the essence of human nature. Is violence in human nature? Is this a way that humans solve conflicts? In a way yes it is. Mankind, man and woman alike, have gone to war over the most trivial of things. Wars have many causes and it is unlikely that one could say, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, that a woman wouldn’t go to war for at least one of them. It seems folly to assume that a woman wouldn’t go to war over anything since feminism assumes that men and women are basically the same and that gender differences are learned and not inherent. To say that a woman wouldn’t go to war whereas a man would seems to be praising ‘gender differences’ brought about because of patriarchy. The concept seems strange to me. Anyways, it is highly unlikely that wars will ever cease, be they caused by man or woman, since the causes are numerous and not the result of patriarchy itself, but are often the result of territorial disputes the likes of which is seen in the animal world as well.
They probably believe it but will never admit to it. Surprise Surprise there.